What is faction?

Hello. My name is Dr Janet Dickinson.

I'm a senior associate tutor at the

University of Oxford Department Concerning education.

Um, I'm a lecturer at New York University in London,

and I research and I teach early modern history.

Um, series elections today are going to be focusing on faction at the Tudor court.

Um,

and the question really of whether or not there actually was

such thing as faction at work in two to politics,

a question which has been very much debated by historians over

the years with quite a strong debate taking place between them.

Very sharply. Varying conclusions.

Um,

the first and perhaps most important thing I'd like to do in this

first lecture is to define what is meant by the term faction.

So for Eric Ives,

a definition of faction is a group of people which

seeks objectives that are seen primarily in personal terms,

so that can be either positive, so gaining or keeping privileges, grants, jobs,

offices or offices for members of the faction or for their associates or negative.

That is to say, denying such things to their rivals.

Now, according to Ives,

the term can be extended to apply to an

entire system where relationships and events are determined by groups

thinking mainly of personal advantage.

Under this definition of faction,

factions have been identified at the Tudor court competing

for Royal Favour or to influence the monarch operating in

the personal attendance of monarchs or in the major organs

of government such as the Privy Council or Parliament.

Further to this,

fractions have been identified as influencing competition between leading

ministers and those who wish to replace them.

Um, and also royal favourites, uh,

those and also those who sought to replace

while favourites or ministers with an alternative candidate.

So lots of people kind of competing for position for office,

for access to the monarch.

Um and this is this has been explained through through

the concept of faction as as as they were driving this

and there are cases where these definitions are so obviously can be applied.

So for things like in Henry,

the eighth grade in the fall of Woolsey or the fall of Amber Lynn or Thomas Cromwell,

um, and also actually,

in the 15 forties attempted efforts to bring down Henry's last queen,

Catherine Parr, Um and also Archbishop Cranmer.

For Edward, the sixth rain. We have the fall of Edward Seymour, the Duke of Somerset

and the Rise of John Dudley, Earl of Warrick.

Later Duke of Northumberland, also explained through faction

Um and then for Elizabeth,

The First Rain Faction has been invoked as a way of making sense of the complicated,

often quite unfriendly,

even hostile relationships between members of the Privy Council and of the court.

But does this actually work?

Does this idea of politically or ideologically opposed groupings,

even just of particular groups of people with a

particular aim or interest in mind working together?

Does that really amount to something as fixed as substantial,

as identifiable as faction?

Um, I would like to suggest that actually,

we need to redefine this term in order for it to be genuinely useful.

Um,

I'd like to relaunch the study of factions and

the role they played in to to court politics.

And in order to do that, I think we need to revise concept of faction, which remains,

I think, you know, important to any effort to explain how court politics work.

Now, whilst it's attempting to suggest an alternative term,

let's get rid of faction altogether.

Um you know, think about interest groupings or patronage networks.

Perhaps, um,

these don't quite capture what is most useful about the concept of faction,

which is it was a term which contemporaries would have

recognised and which was in usage at the time,

albeit most frequently used as a criticism or as

an attack on people for indulging in faction.

But the term reflects the innate

competitiveness of the early modern political world

and the vital importance of making and maintaining bonds

of friendship and service as a way of gaining

and or holding on to power.

If we apply the term faction to such groups,

we can then analyse the connections or the differences between them

and the way in which individuals and groups were

to persuade monarchs or to pursue particular policies.

Now that is not to say, of course,

that political activity did not take place outside of factional groupings.

It is a key importance to recognise that even where factions can be identified,

it does not necessarily follow

that they did or even sought to dominate the political arena.

Sometimes faction can simply be understood as the

way in which individuals found a way into

court politics by attaching themselves to a particular

individual or group and receiving passionate from them.

Now it might be objected that this

loosening of the definition of faction deconstructs it

to a point where it might be said not to have existed at all,

or at least not to have had any real significance.

I'd actually like to argue that this is in fact, the essence of faction,

as with any other term we might use to analyse court politics,

that it's meaning was fluid was open to alteration and modification in light

of a changing political reality or the actions and decisions of an individual,

particularly the monarch.

George Bernard has commented that historians who have emphasised the role

of factions are engaged in an attempt to characterise to to politics

as essentially a conflict

a contest for power,

for influence, for favours and for policies.

The account of faction that I would like to offer

is not precisely on account of faction with conflict taken out

as I would always accept that competitiveness is part of the life of the court

as in any political environment.

But I would like to emphasise that faction could exist where conflict did not

that it did not necessarily result in outright hostility and above all,

that members of these groups were not only

concerned of fighting for power and reward,

but with striving to serve the monarch and the common well, common good

as best they could.

It was, after all, in everyone's best interest to secure the crown,

and the government

cooperation was every bit as important as competition in the world of the core.

One of the key problems, I think,

with previous accounts of faction has been

that they swiftly become overly narrowly defined,

a solidify into something far more substantial than can possibly

have been the case or would have been recognised by

contemporaries operating in this world.

I think that emphasising the fluidity and the

change ability of these groups will potentially open up

the way for a reconsideration of the role played by factions at the true to court.

And I'd like to go on to test that theory Now, with two particular case studies